An enlightened person lives a much less selfish life and helps others while the unenlightened remain part of the problem. You cannot equate the two states as equal.
Dietrich:
This is one of the toughest issues for minds. Separating beliefs usually value virtue over vice. These beliefs are also inbuilt into the way the relative world is set up, and therefore these values have their place. From the innocent point of being, no value judgment is possible. Actions from this vantage point of no-thingness are spontaneously marked by the absence of concern for mental, self-image related satisfaction as there is no identification with any self-image. You would probably call it ‘ego-less’ acting.
Hello Dietrich
Thanks for more thought provoking articles. For some months now, I’ve been trying to define a feeling of unease that I have with Tony Parson’s position. I’ve always had a sense that his statements conceal a deep contradiction but I’ve been unable to quite put my finger on what it is. After watching Natalie’s video, I was inspired to write the following comments which summarize my concerns …. and also give a defence of “doing.”
The discussion points to two states of being: one is “asleep” and one “awake.” Even by using these terms, we create a subtle preference for one state over the other. Yet, as Natalie says, there is nothing that can be done to achieve the preferred state ( a statement of frustration if ever there was one!!) It simply happens. Because both states are no more than consciousness expressing itself, they are of equal value …. and ultimately no different to each other. If we take this to its logical conclusion, then the “sleep” state should be just as acceptable and satisfying as being “awake.” The “frustration” that this circular argument seems to cause, is also the universe expressing itself and therefore should, for the same reason, be acceptable and satisfying. This applies as well to the preference we have for being awake rather than asleep, and also the nagging feeling that I have …. that there is something wrong with this argument!! All these thought patterns and feelings are examples of the universe expressing itself and we ( somehow ) just go along for the ride.
Finally, there is a suspicion that Natalie does contradict her statement that nothing can be done, when she encourages us, at the end of the video, to “see” that we don’t exist. In this case, “seeing” is a kind of “Doing.”
I’d appreciate any other comments that people may have on this topic.
The seeing is spontaneous as is the pointing to the seeing, it’s all spontaneous. There is no entity that sees and no entity that points to the seeing, it’s just what’s happening in the moment.
What was it that brought you to this point of receiving the pointer?
Bernard, only now I read your comments. I like the statement of Paul Hedderman, that the solution is prior to the problem. In this way, we don’t try to solve problems, but we realise that there is none by having recognized the ‘seeing’ that is always prior to the emergence of anything. All the contradictions will resolve in recognizing seeing/awakeness before it gathers, and identifies with, beliefs. When these beliefs come in it would be sufficient to recognize this, rather than trying to put them aside as this trying would indirectly reinforce the notion that there is a problem. The reconizing itself will gradually reduce the energy of these beliefs.
Thanks for your comment Jamie. I’m sorry I took so long to see it!
In reply:-
To say that there is “no entity that sees and no entity that points to the seeing”, seems to me to be edging very close to being a meaningless statement. One is tempted to ask:- So what! How is that beneficial to anyone? ( after all there’s no one here to benefit from it!) I could also make the point that:- me believing that there IS an entity could also be what’s “spontaneously happening in the moment” and should therefore be quite valid!